DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation and Comparison of US Wind and Skipjack Proposed Offshore Wind Project Applications

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation and Comparison of US Wind and Skipjack Proposed Offshore Wind Project Applications Evaluation and Comparison of US Wind and Skipjack Proposed Offshore Wind Project Applications REVISED Public Version prepared for the Maryland Public Service Commission Original – December 11, 2016 Revised – March 17, 2017 100 SUMMER STREET, SUITE 3200 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02110 TEL 617-531-2818 FAX 617-531-2826 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... ES - 1 Process and Schedule ............................................................................................................ ES - 1 Evaluation Methodology ....................................................................................................... ES - 3 Overview of the Proposed Offshore Wind Projects .............................................................. ES - 4 Determination of Administrative Completeness – COMAR 20.61.06.02 A .......................... ES - 6 Applicant Information – COMAR 20.61.06.02 E .................................................................... ES - 6 Applicant Information – COMAR 20.61.06.02 F .................................................................... ES - 8 Project Information – COMAR 20.61.06.02 G ..................................................................... ES - 10 Project Information – COMAR 20.61.06.02 H ..................................................................... ES - 17 Project Information – COMAR 20.61.06.02 I....................................................................... ES - 18 Commercial Information – COMAR 20.61.06.02 J .............................................................. ES - 19 Financial Information – COMAR 20.61.06.02 K ................................................................... ES - 20 Cost-Benefit Analysis – COMAR 20.61.06.02 L .................................................................... ES - 23 OREC Price and Quantity – COMAR 20.61.06.02 M and N ................................................. ES - 27 Minimum Threshold Criteria Recommendation– COMAR 20.61.06.03 A(1)-(6) ................ ES - 29 Qualitative Analysis – COMAR 20.61.06.03 B(1) ................................................................. ES - 30 Quantitative Rate Analysis – COMAR 20.61.06.03 B(2)(a) .................................................. ES - 31 Quantitative Economic Analysis – COMAR 20.61.06.03 B(2)(b) ......................................... ES - 39 Quantitative Environmental and Health Analysis – COMAR 20.61.06.03 B(3) ................... ES - 39 Risk Factors, Similarities, Differentiators, and Approval Requirements ............................. ES - 40 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 Offshore Wind Regulations ......................................................................................................... 2 OREC Application Evaluation Process ......................................................................................... 2 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 4 Project Capital Cost ..................................................................................................................... 4 Power Market Price and Net Rate Impact Calculations .............................................................. 4 Wholesale Energy Prices ........................................................................................................... 13 Evaluation of the US Wind Application................................................................................. 22 Applicant Information ............................................................................................................... 22 Project Information ................................................................................................................... 31 Commercial Information ........................................................................................................... 54 Financial Information ................................................................................................................ 57 Cost-Benefit Analysis ................................................................................................................. 62 Minimum Threshold Criteria ..................................................................................................... 70 - i - Independent Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses ................................................................ 72 Qualitative Analysis ................................................................................................................... 72 Quantitative Analysis – Net Rate Impacts ................................................................................. 84 Quantitative Analysis – Economic Impacts ............................................................................... 90 Quantitative Analysis – Environmental and Health Impacts .................................................... 91 Evaluation of the Skipjack Wind Farm Application ............................................................... 93 Applicant Information ............................................................................................................... 93 Project Information ................................................................................................................... 98 Commercial Information ......................................................................................................... 119 Financial Information .............................................................................................................. 121 Cost-Benefit Analysis ............................................................................................................... 128 Minimum Threshold Criteria ................................................................................................... 139 Independent Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses .............................................................. 141 Qualitative Analysis ................................................................................................................. 142 Quantitative Analysis – Net Rate Impacts ............................................................................... 151 Quantitative Analysis – Economic Impacts ............................................................................. 158 Quantitative Analysis – Environmental and Health Impacts .................................................. 159 - ii - FIGURES Figure 1. BOEM Mid-Atlantic Wind Energy Areas ....................................................................ES - 2 Figure 2. Relative Turbine and Rotor Sizes ........................................................................... ES - 13 Figure 3. Typical Offshore Wind Components ...................................................................... ES - 17 Figure 4. Independent Estimate of US Wind Annual Ratepayer Costs ................................. ES - 38 Figure 5. Independent Estimate of Skipjack Annual Ratepayer Costs .................................. ES - 38 Figure 6. PJM Locational Deliverability Areas ................................................................................ 6 Figure 7. Shift in VRR Demand Curve due to PJM’s New Load Forecast Methodology............... 10 Figure 8. Sample BRA Supply and Demand Curves for the MAAC LDA ....................................... 11 Figure 9. Historical and Independent Forecast of EMAAC Capacity Prices ................................. 13 Figure 10. Map of PJM Transmission Zones ................................................................................. 14 Figure 11. Independent Forecast of Henry Hub and Delivered Gas Prices in Maryland ............. 16 Figure 12. Independent Forecast of CO2 Allowance Prices ......................................................... 17 Figure 13. Maryland Tier 1 REC Req’ts, OREC Carve-Out, and Retail Electricity Sales ................ 18 Figure 14. Historical and Independent Forecast of Maryland Tier 1 REC Prices ......................... 19 Figure 15. Indep. Estimate of Annual Ratepayer Costs & Benefits for US Wind Project ............. 88 Figure 16. Indep. Estimate of Total Ratepayer Costs & Benefits for the US Wind Project.......... 89 Figure 17. Independent Estimate of Annual Ratepayer Cost for the Skipjack Project .............. 156 Figure 18. Indep. Estimate of Ratepayer Cost and Benefits for the Skipjack Project ................ 157 - iii - TABLES Table 1. Applicants’ Estimates of In-State Economic Benefits ............................................... ES-24 Table 2. Applicants’ Estimates of Lifecycle Avoided Emissions .............................................. ES-26 Table 3. Qualitative Color-Coding of Applications as Submitted ............................................ ES-31 Table 4. Independent Estimate of Net Ratepayer Costs ......................................................... ES-36 Table 5. Independent Estimates of In-State Economic Benefits............................................. ES-39 Table 6. Independent Estimate of Average Annual Change in Maryland Air Emissions ........ ES-40 Table 7. Project Approval Requirements ................................................................................. ES-42 Table 8. Independent Market Response Calculation ....................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annual Disclosure Report
    ANNUAL DISCLOSURE REPORT of the LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY (FISCAL YEAR 2020) This Annual Disclosure Report does not constitute an offer to sell or solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. The information set forth herein has been furnished by the Authority and LIPA and includes information obtained from other sources, all of which are believed to be reliable. The information and expressions of opinion contained herein are subject to change without notice and nothing herein shall, under any circumstances, create any implication that there has been no change in the affairs of the Authority, LIPA, PSEG, PSEG Long Island, National Grid or Exelon since the date hereof. Such information and expressions of opinion are made for the purpose of providing information to prospective investors and are not to be used for any other purpose or relied on by any other party. This Annual Disclosure Report contains statements which, to the extent they are not recitations of historical fact, constitute “forward-looking statements.” In this respect, the words “estimate,” “project,” “anticipate,” “expect,” “intend,” “believe” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. A number of important factors affecting the Authority’s and LIPA’s business and financial results could cause actual results to differ materially from those stated in the forward-looking statements. References to website addresses presented herein are for informational purposes only and may be in the form of a hyperlink solely for the reader’s convenience. Unless specified otherwise, such websites and the information or links contained therein are not incorporated into, and are not part of, this Annual Disclosure Report.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy from the Wind Student Guide
    2019-2020 Energy From the Wind Student Guide INTERMEDIATE Introduction to Wind Wind Average Wind Speed at 80 Meters Altitude Wind is moving air. You cannot see air, but it is all around you. You cannot see the wind, but you know it is there. Faster than 9.5 m/s (faster than 21.3 mph) 7.6 to 9.4 m/s (17 to 21.2 mph) You hear leaves rustling in the trees. You see clouds moving 5.6 to 7.5 m/s (12.5 to 16.9 mph) across the sky. You feel cool breezes on your skin. You witness 0 to 5.5 m/s (0 to 12.4 mph) the destruction caused by strong winds such as tornadoes and hurricanes. Wind has energy. Wind resources can be found across the country. Science and technology are providing more tools to accurately predict when and where the wind will blow. This information is allowing people to use wind on small and large scales. Wind is an increasingly important part of the United States’ energy portfolio. Data: National Renewable Energy Laboratory The Beaufort Scale BEAUFORT SCALE OF WIND SPEED BEAUFORT At the age of 12, Francis Beaufort joined the NUMBER NAME OF WIND LAND CONDITIONS WIND SPEED (MPH) British Royal Navy. For more than twenty years 0 Calm Smoke rises vertically Less than 1 he sailed the oceans and studied the wind, Direction of wind shown by smoke drift which was the main power source for the 1 Light air 1 - 3 Navy’s fleet. In 1805, he created a scale to rate but not by wind vanes Wind felt on face, leaves rustle, ordinary the power of the wind based on observations 2 Light breeze 4 - 7 of common things around him rather than wind vane moved by wind Leaves and small twigs in constant instruments.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 and 2015 Q1 EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File
    SPREADSHEET PREPARED BY WINDACTION.ORG Based on U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 and 2015 Q1 EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File Q1'2015 Q1'2014 State MW CF CF Arizona 227 15.8% 21.0% California 5,182 13.2% 19.8% Colorado 2,299 36.4% 40.9% Hawaii 171 21.0% 18.3% Iowa 4,977 40.8% 44.4% Idaho 532 28.3% 42.0% Illinois 3,524 38.0% 42.3% Indiana 1,537 32.6% 29.8% Kansas 2,898 41.0% 46.5% Massachusetts 29 41.7% 52.4% Maryland 120 38.6% 37.6% Maine 401 40.1% 36.3% Michigan 1,374 37.9% 36.7% Minnesota 2,440 42.4% 45.5% Missouri 454 29.3% 35.5% Montana 605 46.4% 43.5% North Dakota 1,767 42.8% 49.8% Nebraska 518 49.4% 53.2% New Hampshire 147 36.7% 34.6% New Mexico 773 23.1% 40.8% Nevada 152 22.1% 22.0% New York 1,712 33.5% 32.8% Ohio 403 37.6% 41.7% Oklahoma 3,158 36.2% 45.1% Oregon 3,044 15.3% 23.7% Pennsylvania 1,278 39.2% 40.0% South Dakota 779 47.4% 50.4% Tennessee 29 22.2% 26.4% Texas 12,308 27.5% 37.7% Utah 306 16.5% 24.2% Vermont 109 39.1% 33.1% Washington 2,724 20.6% 29.5% Wisconsin 608 33.4% 38.7% West Virginia 583 37.8% 38.0% Wyoming 1,340 39.3% 52.2% Total 58,507 31.6% 37.7% SPREADSHEET PREPARED BY WINDACTION.ORG Based on U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Jeffrey Grybowski
    JEFFREY GRYBOWSKI PROFILE Mr. Grybowski is the Chief Executive Officer of Deepwater Wind, where he manages the company’s portfolio of offshore wind and transmission projects. He has been intimately involved in the development of Deepwater Wind’s path-breaking Block Island Wind Farm since its inception in 2008. Mr. Grybowski has been at the forefront of shaping the commercial structures and government policies necessary to support offshore wind in the U.S. He plays a key role in the development of federal and state policies governing the leasing, permitting, and commercialization of offshore wind and transmission projects. Through the advancement of the Block Island Wind Farm, Mr. Grybowski has been a leader in establishing the commercial framework for standing up a new renewable energy industry in the United States. EXPERIENCE Deepwater Wind, LLC, Providence, RI Chief Executive Officer Hinckley, Allen & Snyder, LLP, Providence, RI • Partner, Corporate and Business Law Group • Chair of the Green Law Group Office of the Governor of the State of Rhode Island Chief of Staff, Deputy Chief of Staff, and Policy Director (2003 - 2007) Sullivan & Cromwell, New York, NY Associate, Complex corporate and business law Chambers of Chief Judge Ronald Lagueux, U.S. District Court for the District of RI Judicial Clerk (1998 – 1999) EDUCATION University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law Juris Doctor with High Honors, 1998 Order of the Coif North Carolina Law Review, Publication Editor Brown University A.B. with Honors in Public Policy, 1993 CHRIS VAN BEEK PROFILE Chris serves as President, where he is responsible for Technology, Operations, Project Management, Construction and Permitting.
    [Show full text]
  • Position of Respondent Annual Investment Level in the U.S. Renewable Energy Sector
    Position of Respondent Annual Investment Level in the U.S. Renewable Energy Sector Expectations for Renewable Energy Finance in 2021-2024 Energy Expectations for Renewable 33 Financing Vehicles Used for Renewable Energy Developer Survey Position of Respondent Expectations for Renewable Energy Finance in 2021-2024 Energy Expectations for Renewable 34 Total Revenue of U.S. Renewable Energy Business Total Capacity of Company’s Renewable Energy Installations over the Past Three Years Expectations for Renewable Energy Finance in 2021-2024 Energy Expectations for Renewable 35 Renewable Energy Technologies Developed by Each Company Over the Past Three Years Expectations for Renewable Energy Finance in 2021-2024 Energy Expectations for Renewable 36 Authors Maheen Ahmad, Program Manager Lesley Hunter, Vice President of Programs About ACORE The American Council on Renewable Energy is a national nonprofit organization that unites finance, policy and technology to accelerate the transition to a renewable energy economy. For more information, please visit www.acore.org. $1T 2030: The American Renewable Investment Goal On June 19, 2018, ACORE and a coalition of its financial institution members announced the launch of a new campaign that aims to reach $1 trillion in U.S. private sector investment in renewable energy and enabling grid technologies by 2030. Through $1T 2030: The American Renewable Investment Goal, leading energy financiers have now come together in a coordinated effort to accelerate the investment and deployment of renewable power. The campaign leverages the network of ACORE members and supporters, highlighting a combined set of commonsense policy reforms and distinct market drivers that are necessary to reach this ambitious goal.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning for Wind Energy
    Planning for Wind Energy Suzanne Rynne, AICP , Larry Flowers, Eric Lantz, and Erica Heller, AICP , Editors American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service Report Number 566 Planning for Wind Energy is the result of a collaborative part- search intern at APA; Kirstin Kuenzi is a research intern at nership among the American Planning Association (APA), APA; Joe MacDonald, aicp, was program development se- the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the nior associate at APA; Ann F. Dillemuth, aicp, is a research American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), and Clarion associate and co-editor of PAS Memo at APA. Associates. Funding was provided by the U.S. Department The authors thank the many other individuals who con- of Energy under award number DE-EE0000717, as part of tributed to or supported this project, particularly the plan- the 20% Wind by 2030: Overcoming the Challenges funding ners, elected officials, and other stakeholders from case- opportunity. study communities who participated in interviews, shared The report was developed under the auspices of the Green documents and images, and reviewed drafts of the case Communities Research Center, one of APA’s National studies. Special thanks also goes to the project partners Centers for Planning. The Center engages in research, policy, who reviewed the entire report and provided thoughtful outreach, and education that advance green communities edits and comments, as well as the scoping symposium through planning. For more information, visit www.plan- participants who worked with APA and project partners to ning.org/nationalcenters/green/index.htm. APA’s National develop the outline for the report: James Andrews, utilities Centers for Planning conduct policy-relevant research and specialist at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission; education involving community health, natural and man- Jennifer Banks, offshore wind and siting specialist at AWEA; made hazards, and green communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Northwest Ohio Aug 8 2013 OPSB App.Pdf
    568;1=.9; 6126 =25- /*84! 7*<3-250 ,6<5;>! 6126 *4.5-.- *LLHGA?NGKJ NK NFC 6FGK 7KQCM 9GNGJE +K?MB /KM ? ,CMNGDGA?NC KD .JPGMKJICJN?H ,KIL?NG@GHGNR ?JB 7O@HGA 5CCB 9O@IGNNCB +R 568;1=.9; 6126 =25- .5.80>! 33, ,*9. 56" $&"#$)'".3"+05 *4.5-.- *7732,*;265 *<0<9; (! %#$& August 8, 2013 COLUMBUS I CLEVELAND Ms. Betty McCauly CINCINNATI-DAYTON Administration/Docketing MARIETTA Ohio Power Siting Board th BRICKER&ECKLERLLP 180 East Broad Street, 11 Floor 100 South Third Street Columbus, OH 43215-4291 Columbus, Ohio 43215-3793 MAIN: 614.227.2300 FAX: 614.227.2390 Re: Northwest Ohio Wind Energy www.bricker.com Case No. 13-197-EL-BGN [email protected] Dear Ms. McCauly: Sally W. Bloomfield 614.227.2368 [email protected] Enclosed, please find an original and five copies of the Amended Application of Northwest Ohio Wind Energy for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need under Chapter 4906-17 of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC). Pursuant to OAC 4906-5-03(A)(3), the applicant makes the following declarations: Name of Applicant: Northwest Ohio Wind Energy LLC c/o National Wind, LLC 706 Second Avenue South, Suite 1200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Name/Location of Proposed Facility: Northwest Ohio Wind Energy wind farm Townships of Blue Creek and Latty Paulding County, Ohio Authorized Representative Technical: Marcus V. da Cunha National Wind LLC 706 Second Avenue South, Suite 1200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 746-6617 E-Mail: [email protected] 6555997v1 #2/-0.2 ! $-01.2 "**'(&$,) "* %"+ Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact Assessment
    U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact Assessment Issue Date | March 2020 Prepared By American Wind Energy Association Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Current Status of U.S. Offshore Wind .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Lessons from Land-based Wind ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Announced Investments in Domestic Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................ 5 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Input Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Modeling Tool ........................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Deepwater Wind Plans Offshore Wind Farm to Serve Maryland
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MEDIA CONTACT: Meaghan Wims 401.278.4434, [email protected] Deepwater Wind Plans Offshore Wind Farm to Serve Maryland Skipjack Wind Farm Will Deliver Affordable Offshore Wind Energy Far Below State Estimates, Saving Ratepayers Millions of Dollars Ocean City, Md. – November 22, 2016 – America’s leading offshore wind company Deepwater Wind today announced plans for the Skipjack Wind Farm, a new offshore wind farm that will help Maryland meet its clean-energy goals at far lower prices than state law anticipates, saving Maryland ratepayers millions of dollars. The Skipjack Wind Farm will not only be the state’s largest renewable energy project, it would also be the right size for Maryland’s first offshore wind farm. At 120 megawatts, the Skipjack Wind Farm could be built in a single construction season, and developed more cost-effectively, and with considerably less risk, than a larger project. At more than 17 nautical miles northeast of Ocean City’s coastline, the project would be located so far away that it won’t impact views from Maryland’s shore. Deepwater Wind has secured the rights to acquire the site’s federal lease, subject to regulatory approval. “We’re bringing down the cost of American offshore wind energy in a big way,” said Deepwater Wind CEO Jeffrey Grybowski. “Ratepayers in Maryland will benefit from energy that is both clean and affordable. The Skipjack Wind Farm is the right clean energy solution for Maryland, and we’re ready to get to work.” The Skipjack Wind Farm is expected to generate well over $100 million dollars in economic benefits for Maryland.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Market Report
    US OFFSHORE WIND MARKET UPDATE & INSIGHTS US OFFSHORE WIND CAPACITY GENERATION The US Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM), has auctioned 16 US offshore wind energy areas (WEAs) designated in federal waters for offshore wind development. Each area has been leased to a qualified offshore wind developer. The ar- eas are located along the East Coast from North Carolina to Massachusetts and represent a total potential capacity of 21,000 Megawatts (MWs) of offshore wind power generation. HISTORY OF BOEM AUCTIONS AND LEASES YEAR LEASE # LESSEE STATE ACREAGE BID MW* NEXT 2012 0482 GSOE I DE 70,098 NA NA SAP *Reading volumes, some earlier estimates 2013 0486 Deepwater Wind NE RI/MA 97,498 $3,838,288 3400 TTL COP of capacity likely used 2013 0487 Deepwater Wind NE RI/MA 67,252 $3,838,288 3400 TTL FDR different calculations. 2013 0483 VA Electric & Power Co. VA 112,799 $1,600,000 2000 COP In all cases, capacity 2014 0490 US Wind MD 79,707 $8,701,098 1450 COP calculations should be considered estimates. 2015 0501 Vineyard Wind MA 166,886 $166,886 See Below FDR 2015 0500 Bay State Wind MA 187,523 $281,285 2000 TTL COP 2016 0498 Ocean Wind NJ 160,480 $880,715 See Below COP 2016 0499 EDFR Development NJ 183,353 $1,006,240 3400 TTL SAP 2017 0512 Equinor Wind US NY 79,350 $42,469,725 1000 COP 2017 0508 Avangrid Renewables NC 122,405 $9,066,650 1486 SAP 2018 0519 Skipjack Offshore Energy DE 26,332 Assigned NA SAP 2018 0520 Equinor Wind US MA 128,811 $135,000,000 1300 EXEC 2018 0521 Mayflower Wind Energy MA 127,388 $135,000,000 1300 EXEC 2018 0522 Vineyard Wind MA 132,370 $135,000,000 1500 EXEC EXEC—Lease Execution SAP—Site Assessment Plan COP—Construction & Operations Plan FDR—Facility Design Report @offshorewindus / BUSINESS NETWORK FOR OFFSHORE WIND / offshorewindus.org 1 STATE 2018 2019 MARKET GROWTH The US Offshore Wind market currently stands VIRGINIA 12 12 at 16,970 MWs and is a subset of the total US MARYLAND 366 366 potential generation capacity.
    [Show full text]
  • Offshore Wind Summit September 25, 30, and October 7
    Offshore Wind Summit September 25, 30, and October 7, 2020 National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & The Embassy of Denmark 1 Introductory Remarks Jessica Rackley, Energy & Environment Program Director, NGA Center for Best Practices Michael Guldbrandtsen, Counselor, Embassy of Denmark Thank You to our Sponsors States with Clean Energy Goals Source: NGA, 2020 Offshore Wind Technical Potential Source: NREL, 2016 Offshore Wind Energy Resource Assessment for the United States Today’s Virtual Meeting: Zoom Controls The Zoom menu bar appears at the If you don’t see the menu bar, move your bottom of the Zoom window once the meeting begins. mouse slightly and the bar will appear. Chat your questions Introductory Remarks Michael Guldbrandtsen Counselor Embassy of Denmark Welcome Remarks Tim Blute Director NGA Center for Best Practices Introduction to the Day – Offshore Wind Update Thomas Brostrøm CEO Ørsted North America, Offshore Offshore Wind Summit Thomas Brostrøm, CEO Ørsted North America, Offshore Offshore Wind Update September 25, 2020 Ranked most sustainable company in the world 2 Significant transformation of Ørsted over the past decade 1 Note 1: Figures taken from Ørsted’s Annual Report 2019. Excluding Radius (power distribution business which was divested during 2019) Note 2: ROCE target for 2019-2025 3 Note 3: International share calculated based on Group EBITDA excl. divestments and miscellaneous un-allocated costs totalling 16 DKKbn The first major energy company to reach net-zero emissions in its energy generation – We will become carbon neutral by 2025. – This will make Ørsted the first major energy company to reach net-zero emissions in its energy generation – far ahead of science-based decarbonization targets for limiting global warming to 1.5°C.
    [Show full text]
  • Perceived Risk and Response to the Wind Turbine Ice Throw
    PERCEIVED RISK AND RESPONSE TO THE WIND TURBINE ICE THROW HAZARD: COMPARING COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS AND OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL IN TWO REGIONS OF TEXAS by Greg Klaus, B.S., M.A.G. A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Council of Texas State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy with a major in Environmental Geography May 2017 Committee Members: Denise Blanchard-Boehm, Chair Richard Dixon Richard Earl Todd Moore COPYRIGHT by Greg Klaus 2017 FAIR USE AND AUTHOR’S PERMISSION STATEMENT Fair Use This work is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553, section 107). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgment. Use of this material for financial gain without the author’s express written permission is not allowed. Duplication Permission As the copyright holder of this work I, Greg Klaus, authorize duplication of this work, in whole or in part, for educational or scholarly purposes only. DEDICATION The author would like to dedicate this dissertation to the men and women who work in the wind energy industry who at times put themselves in harm’s way in order to provide for their families and also supply this great nation with a clean, renewable source of electricity. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank his committee chair Dr. Denise Blanchard for all of her support and guidance throughout the dissertation process; as well as thank committee members Dr. Richard Dixon, Dr. Richard Earl, and Dr.
    [Show full text]